The fine art of debating

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; I often get criticized for taking different stances on the same topic.
But -- there's a reason for that.
For one... I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to many things that are discussed here.
Take Haslett ...

I often get criticized for taking different stances on the same topic.

But -- there's a reason for that.

For one... I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to many things that are discussed here.

Take Haslett for example. I hear some persuading arguements on both sides. I agree that Haslett probably should have been fired. And I agree that he's made some bad mistakes. But I also think he can still be a damn fine coach.

Confusing?

I'm sure it is............ I'm just not willing to side with either crowd on this one. So, I question both sides. And I learn some stuff too. But I'm leaning towards the anit-Haslett crowd!!

Same thing with Brooks. I don't know at this point. I can see a case for getting rid of Brooks. I can see a case for keeping him. Since there ain't too many folks here who stand up for Brooks, then it ain't much use in me repeating all the negative things about Brooks. Overall, I'm on the pro-Brooks side of this arguement. Surprise, huh?

But I actually like to hear the negative side about Brooks. I just don't like some unfair things that are said. Like folks using win/loss records as a way of judging Brooks. Totally off-base, IMO. I've already stated why a long time ago.

Some folks just take everything a little too far. And I do too at times. You get caught up in a discussion and its hard to leave it alone some times.

Anyway, I learned long ago that its wise to question both sides if you're not sure about something. It's served me well for many years.

I'm not on of those guys who thinks he knows for sure what the problems are. In fact, I'm one of those guys who know for sure that he doesn't know what all the problems are.

Someone might tell me McCarthy needs to go because of his play-calling and I'll disagree.

Someone might tell me McCarthy needs to stay because he is an excellent play-caller and I'll disagree.

Maybe I think McCarthy is an average play-caller who has been crippled by somethings outside of his control.

I'm always open to debate on EVERYTHING. As long as its logical to me. But don't we all feel that way?

Debates are structured events with rules, etc. What we have here is an (mostly) unconstrained place where people say things about our favorite team.

Don\'t get me wrong, I believe I\'ve learned a lot here. In putting out my views, I\'ve been correct, changed, and bettered.

I also agree that attacks on people are misguided (though, I too have at times been guilty of this). We are talking about ideas - ideas about our team. I\'ve always taken it to be my goal to have the best ideas possible (the ones that are closest to the facts). It is my view that some level of discussion is required for this - it is like thinking about it in your own head with the advantage of loud voices that think differently from your normal way of thinking about it. (Hmm, I\'m starting to wonder about myself now...)

However, I can see that people may have very different goals for coming here. Some people just want some information, some people just want to vent, others are here to pick fights and show that their d--k is bigger than someone elses. I know which of these kinds of goals I prefer, but I\'m not sure how to decide if one of these goals is legitimately better than another?

Finally, I don\'t think changing your mind on an issue is a bad thing, but other people seem to. Is there something wrong with me?

if you don\'t come into a debate with an open mind-it\'s called argueing.

If you don\'t come into a debate with a consistent statements it\'s called talking in circles.

I don\'t think I necessarily agree with that. Though you may be right.

But here\'s what I think.

if you don\'t come into a debate with an open mind-it\'s called argueing.

I agree with that one. Like when someone says Brooks and Haslett needs to go and that\'s just the way it is. That\'s not very open minded and I agree..

If you don\'t come into a debate with a consistent statements it\'s called talking in circles.

I\'m kind of confused by this. Things happen to change one\'s mind. I don\'t think you can just take a stance and not be willing to come to the other side. I also don\'t think there\'s anything wrong with disagreeing with both sides. Or agreeing with both sides. Sometimes, you\'re just not sure.

Some people just want some information, some people just want to vent, others are here to pick fights and show that their d--k is bigger than someone elses.

Yours is the latter, huh Kool?

PS - Billy - really? A thread called \"The fine art of debating?\" From you? LOL. Kidding... but can I ask one question? Is there going to be a tutorial on how to say something in one thread, start a new thread, and then completely reverse your statements and suggest that you never said them? LOL. It\'s just fun picking on Billy.